FB Legtech PDF

4/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 785
G.R. No. 217012. March 1, 2016.*

WIGBERTO “TOBY” R. TAÑADA, JR., petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ANGELINA
“HELEN” D. TAN, and ALVIN JOHN S. TAÑADA, respondents.
Election Law; COMELEC Rules of Procedure; Section 1(d), Rule 13 of

the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Rules of Procedure specifically
prohibits the filing of a “ motion for reconsideration of an En Banc ruling,
resolution, order or decision except in election offense cases.” —Wigberto
committed several fatal procedural errors. First, Wigberto filed a prohibited
pleading: a motion for reconsideration of a resolution of the COMELEC En
Banc. Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
specifically prohibits the filing of a “motion for reconsideration of an En
Banc ruling, resolution, order or decision except in election offense cases.”
Consequently, the COMELEC En Banc ruling became final and executory,
precluding
_______________
* EN BANC.

315
VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 315

Tañada, Jr. vs. House of Represetatives Electoral Tribunal
Wigberto from raising again in any other forum Alvin John’s nuisance
candidacy as an issue. Second, Wigberto filed his petition beyond the period
provided by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The COMELEC En Banc
promulgated its resolution on Alvin John’s alleged nuisance candidacy on
25 April 2013. Wigberto filed his petition in G.R. Nos. 207199-200 before
this Court on 27 May 2013. By this date, the COMELEC En Banc’s
resolution on Alvin John’s alleged nuisance candidacy was already final and
executory. Section 3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
provides: Section 3. Decisions Final After Five Days.—Decisions in pre-
proclamation cases and petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates
of candidacy, to declare a candidate as nuisance candidate or to disqualify a
candidate, and to postpone or suspend elections shall become final and
executory after the lapse of five (5) days from their promulgation, unless
restrained by the Supreme Court. What Wigberto should have done was to
file a petition for certiorari with this Court within five days from
promulgation of the 25 April 2013 resolution of the COMELEC En Banc.
Wigberto failed to timely assail before this Court through a petition for
certiorari the COMELEC En Banc resolution declaring that Alvin John was
not a nuisance candidate.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a1fe09c56c08da984003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
Same; Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy; Nuisance Candidates;

It is not enough for Wigberto to have Alvin John’s Certificate of Candidacy
(CoC) cancelled, because the effect of such cancellation only leads to stray
votes. Alvin John must also be declared a nuisance candidate, because only
then will Alvin John’s votes be credited to Wigberto.—The HRET did not
commit any grave abuse of discretion in declaring that it has no jurisdiction
to determine whether Alvin John was a nuisance candidate. If Wigberto
timely filed a petition before this Court within the period allotted for special
actions and questioned Alvin John’s nuisance candidacy, then it is proper for
this Court to assume jurisdiction and rule on the matter. As things stand, the
COMELEC En Banc’s ruling on Alvin John’s nuisance candidacy had long
become final and executory. To our mind, it appears that Wigberto’s petition
challenging Alvin John’s nuisance candidacy filed before the HRET, and
now before this Court, is a mere afterthought. It was only after Angelina
was proclaimed a winner that Wigberto renewed his zeal in pursuing Alvin
John’s alleged nuisance candidacy. It is not enough for Wigberto to have
Alvin John’s CoC cancelled, because the effect of such cancellation only
leads to stray votes. Alvin John must also be declared a nui-

316
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

sance candidate, because only then will Alvin John’s votes be credited
to Wigberto.

PEREZ, J., Concurring Opinion:

Election Law; House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal;
Jurisdiction; House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal Rules; View that
under the 2015 Revised Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET Rules), the electoral tribunal only has jurisdiction over two
(2) types of election contests: election protests and quo warranto cases.—
Under the 2015 Revised Rules of the HRET (HRET Rules), the electoral
tribunal only has jurisdiction over two (2) types of election contests:
election protests and quo warranto cases. An election protest is the proper
remedy against acts or omissions constituting electoral frauds or anomalies
in contested polling precincts, and for the revision of ballots. On the other
hand, the eligibility of the Member of the Lower House is impugned in a
quo warranto case. Evidently, the HRET Rules do not prescribe procedural
guidelines on how the Certificate of Candidacy of a political aspirant can be
cancelled on the ground that he or she is a nuisance candidate. Rather, this
remedial vehicle is instituted in the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
Rules of Procedure, particularly Rule 24 thereof, by virtue of Sec. 69 of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code.
Same; Same; Same; View that the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET) is not vested with appellate jurisdiction over the rulings of
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc.—It is worth recalling
in the case at bar that the COMELEC, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, has
resolved that Alvin John is not a nuisance candidate, although he committed
false material representations in his certificate of candidacy. It was error,
however, for petitioner to assume that the HRET may thereafter reverse the
COMELEC’s findings. The tribunal is not vested with appellate jurisdiction
over the rulings of the COMELEC En Banc. As the Court held in Codilla,
Sr. v. Hon. De Venecia, 393 SCRA 639 (2002), the HRET cannot assume
jurisdiction over a cancellation case involving Members of Lower House
that had already been decided by the COMELEC and is under review by the
Supreme Court. I see no bar against applying the same restriction by
analogy to proceedings against nuisance candidates wherein a final
judgment has already

317
VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 317

been rendered by the polling commission, even more so in this case

where Alvin John can never be deemed a “Member” of Congress over
whom the HRET can exercise jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; View that in Reyes v. COMELEC, 699 SCRA 522
(2013), the Supreme Court (SC) made clear that the jurisdiction of the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), as circumscribed
under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution, is limited to the election,
returns, and qualification of the Members of the House of Representatives.
—In Reyes v. COMELEC, 699 SCRA 522 (2013), the Court made clear that
the jurisdiction of the HRET, as circumscribed under Article VI, Section 17
of the Constitution, is limited to the election, returns, and qualification of the
Members of the House of Representatives. And to be considered a Member
of the Lower House, there must be a concurrence of the following
requisites: (1) a valid proclamation, (2) a proper oath, and (3) assumption of
office. This remains to be the standing test of membership in Congress being
applied by the Court.
Same; Same; Same; View that the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled in the
recent case of Timuay v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207144, February 3, 2015,
that “ once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and
assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the
jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections [COMELEC] over election
contests relating to his/her election, returns, and qualification ends, and the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal’s (HRET’s) own jurisdiction
begins.” —To set the record straight, the dismissal of the petitions in G.R.
Nos. 207199-200 on October 22, 2013 was never intended to modify, much
less overturn, the doctrine laid down in Reyes. Noteworthy is that the
dismissal was effected through a minute resolution, in contrast to the
Decision in Reyes, which was the result of a deeper scrutiny of the issue
regarding the HRET’s jurisdiction. Moreover, the statement in our ruling in
G.R. Nos. 207199-200 that proclamation alone vests the HRET with
jurisdiction over election, returns, and qualification of the winning candidate
is mere obiter dictum, for as the Court observed, all of the three requisites
for private respondent Tan’s membership in the Congress were present. To
dispel any lingering doubt, the Court has ruled in the recent case of Timuay
v. COMELEC that “once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken
his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Rep-

318
resentatives, the jurisdiction of the [COMELEC] over election contests

relating to his/her election, returns, and qualification ends, and the HRET’s
own jurisdiction begins,” in consonance with our ruling in Reyes.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jose P. Villamor, Jr., Frank Y. Tan and Josef Leroi L. Garcia for
petitioner.
George Erwin M. Garcia for respondent Angelina “Helen” D.
Tan.
John Philip O. Cabugao for respondent Alvin John S. Tañada.
CARPIO, J.:

The Case

G.R. No. 217012 is a petition for certiorari1 assailing the
Resolutions promulgated on 25 September 20142 and 22 January
20153 by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) in
HRET Case No. 13-018 (EP). The HRET dismissed Wigberto
“Toby” R. Tañada, Jr.’s (Wigberto) election protest ad cautelam on
two grounds: for being insufficient in form and substance, and for
lack of jurisdiction to pronounce and declare Alvin John Tañada
(Alvin John) as a nuisance candidate.
_______________
1 Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

2 Rollo, pp. 39-52. Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, with
Associate Justice and Chairperson Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Associate Justice
Diosdado M. Peralta, and Representatives Ma. Theresa B. Bonoan and Wilfrido Mark
M. Enverga, concurring. Representative Luzviminda C. Ilagan penned a Concurring
and Dissenting Opinion, which was joined by Representatives Franklin P. Bautista,
Joselito Andrew R. Mendoza, and Jerry P. Treñas.
3 Id., at pp. 70-71.

319
VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 319

The F acts

The HRET recited the facts as follows:

Culled from the records and the submissions of the parties
herein, as well as from the ruling of the Supreme Court in
Tañada, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, et al., [G.R. Nos.
207199-200, 22 October 2013, 708 SCRA 188] are the factual
antecedents relevant to this resolution.
For the position of Representative of the Fourth Legislative
District of the Province of Quezon contested in the National
and Local Elections of 2013, three candidates filed their
respective Certificates of Candidacy (CoC), namely: Wigberto
R. Tañada, Jr. (Wigberto) of the Liberal Party; Angelina D.
Tan (Tan) of the Nationalist People’s Coalition [(NPC)]; and
Alvin John S. Tañada (Alvin John) of the Lapiang
Manggagawa. In October 2012, Wigberto filed twin petitions
in the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to seek the
cancellation of Alvin John’s CoC (docketed as SPA No. 13-
056), and to declare Alvin John a nuisance candidate
(docketed as SPA No. 13-0357). The petitions were eventually
consolidated.
On January 29, 2013, the COMELEC First Division
dismissed the consolidated petitions for their lack of merit.
Wigberto duly filed his motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal of his petitioners [sic], alleging the following
grounds, to wit:
a) Assuming Respondent Tañada resided in Purok
3, Barangay Progreso, Gumaca, Quezon for a period of
thirteen (13) years, the said period was long ago.
Presently, Respondent Tañada failed to comply with the
one-year residency requirement.
b) Respondent Tañada was a resident of Parañaque
where he was enrolled as a voter from 2009 until 4 June
2012, when he transferred his Voter’s Registration to
Gumaca, Quezon; and

320

c) Respondent Tañada’s own tweets and entries in

Facebook are bereft of any political plans or activities
which betray his true intentions to run as Member of the
4th District of Gumaca, Quezon.
On April 25, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc denied
Wigberto’s motion for reconsideration in SPA No. 13-057, but
granted his motion for reconsideration in SPA No. 13-056,
decreeing thusly:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for
Reconsideration dated 18 February 2013 is
PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Motion for
Reconsideration for SPA No. 13-057 (DC) is DENIED
for LACK OF MERIT. However, the Motion for
Reconsideration for SPA No. 13-056 (DC) is
GRANTED. Accordingly, Respondent Alvin John S.
Tañada’s Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
Member of the House of Representatives for the 4th
District of the Province of Quezon is hereby
CANCELLED.
On May 7, 2013, Wigberto sought the reconsideration of
the denial of his petition in SPA Case No. 13-057 to urge the
declaration of Alvin John as a nuisance candidate on the basis
of newly discovered evidence.
For the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections, the
name of candidate Alvin John remained in the ballots. After
the canvass of the votes, the following results indicated that
Tan was the winning candidate, to wit:
Tan 84,782
Tañada, Wigberto 80,698
Tañada, Alvin John 7,038
On May 16, 2013, Wigberto filed with the Quezon
Provincial Board of Canvassers (Quezon PBOC) his
PETITION TO CORRECT MANIFEST ERRORS IN THE
CERTIFICATES OF CANVASS FOR THE POSITION OF
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-

321
VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 321

TIVES, 4TH DISTRICT, QUEZON with URGENT

MOTION TO SUSPEND CANVASS AND/OR
PROCLAMATION FOR THE SAID POSITION, whereby he
prayed that the COMELEC direct the Quezon PBOC to
consolidate in his favor the votes canvassed for Alvin John,
and to proclaim the candidate with the highest number of
votes as the winner.
The Quezon PBOC denied Wigberto’s motion to have the
votes garnered by Alvin John credited in his favor on the same
date of May 16, 2013, holding that the votes of Alvin John
could not be counted in favor of Wigberto because the
cancellation of the former’s CoC had been on the basis of his
material misrepresentations under Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code, not on being a nuisance candidate under
Section 69 of Omnibus Election Code. The Quezon PBOC
then proclaimed Tan as the winning candidate.
On May 21, 2013, Wigberto filed a SUPPLEMENT TO
THE PETITION WITH ADDITIONAL PRAYER FOR
ANNULMENT OF PROCLAMATION, whereby he reiterated
his prayer to be declared as the winning candidate for the
position of Representative of the Fourth District of Quezon by
consolidating the votes received by Alvin John with the votes
he garnered.
On May 27, 2013, Wigberto brought in the Supreme Court
his AD CAUTELAM PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,
MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION with URGENT
MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A STATUS QUO ANTE
ORDER to assail the COMELEC En Banc’s Resolution
promulgated on April 25, 2013 declaring Alvin John not a
nuisance candidate, docketed as G.R. Nos. 207199-200,
thereby imploring the Supreme Court to declare Alvin John as
a nuisance candidate, and to order the COMELEC to credit
the votes received by Alvin John in his favor.
On May 30, 2013, Wigberto filed [with] this Tribunal this
election protest ad cautela, pertinently alleging as follows:

322
13. The fraud perpetrated upon herein Protestant in

the fielding of Alvin John Tañada as a nuisance
candidate consists of the following:
a. The lawyers who turned out to be
counsels for Protestee collaborated, in varying
degrees and at various times, in support of the
nuisance candidate Alvin John Tañada, in a case
of an otherwise patent conflict of interest, unless
their client Protestee in the first place was
precisely the sponsor of the candidacy of Alvin
John as a nuisance candidate in order to confuse
and mislead the voters into voting for Alvin John
instead of herein Protestant, to wit: x x x.
b. As found by the Comelec En Banc in SPA
13-056, Alvin John Tañada “is not a resident of
and/or never resided” in the Fourth District of
Quezon, and that he had the “intent to mislead,
misinform, or deceive the electorate” since he is a
resident of Parañaque City, and therefore
disqualified from running for any elective post in
the Fourth District of Quezon. x x x.
d. Alvin John Tañada was never seen
campaigning in the Fourth District of Quezon
Province, nor did he have any posters in the
common poster areas. Neither did he attend any
campaign rally or candidate’s forum. To top it all,
he did not even bother to vote in the May 13,
2013 Elections.
e. An avid user of social media such as
Facebook and Twitter, Alvin John Tañada never
made a single post or tweet to his friends,
relatives or associates in said media about his
political plans of the fact that he was running as

323
VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 323

Congressman. Such palpable silence, if not

secrecy, on one’s candidacy is a trademark
attitude of nuisance candidates. They make
themselves publicly scarce and difficult to track
down, when the very nature of a candidacy
precisely seeks nourishment from widespread
publicity and maximum exposure.
f. The fraudulent fielding of Alvin John
Tañada as a nuisance candidate resulted in 7,038
votes for the one and only bona fide candidate
with the surname “Tañada,” Wigberto “Toby”
Tañada, [Jr.,] whose certificate of candidacy, in
the first place, had already been ordered cancelled
by the Comelec in its April 25, 2013 consolidated
Resolution in SPA 13-056 and 13-057. x x x.
22. Because of the perpetration of fraud upon
herein Protestant through the malicious and intentional
fielding of a nuisance candidate in the person of Alvin
John Tañada to sabotage the candidacy of herein
Protestant, and the inclusion of Alvin John’s name in
the ballot despite the cancellation of his certificate of
candidacy, Protestant is hereby protesting the
miscounting and mistabulation of the votes cast for him
as votes for Alvin John in the ten (10) Municipal Board
of Canvassers of the Fourth District of Quezon and the
Provincial Board of Canvassers of Quezon as follows:
x x x.
Meanwhile, on June 28, 2013, the COMELEC Second
Division favorably acted on the motion to annul the
proclamation of Tan, and annulled the proclamation, and
directed the Quezon PBOC to credit the 7,038 votes of Alvin
John to Wigberto, and to declare the winner after the
recomputation of the votes. While Wigberto’s petition for
certiorari was still pending in the Supreme Court, the

324

COMELEC En Banc affirmed the action of the

COMELEC Second Division annulling Tan’s proclamation.
However, Tan had by then taken her oath and assumed office
past noon time of June 30, 2013, thereby rendering the
adverse resolution on her proclamation moot.
On October 22, 2013, the Supreme Court promulgated its
resolution in G.R. Nos. 207199-200 dismissing Wigberto’s
AD CAUTELAM PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,
MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION with URGENT
MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A STATUS QUO ANTE
ORDER, viz.:
Case law states that the proclamation of a
congressional candidate following the election divests
the COMELEC of jurisdiction over disputes relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of the
proclaimed representative in favor of the HRET. The
phrase “election, returns and qualifications” refers to all
matters affecting the validity of the contestee’s title. In
particular, the term “election” refers to the conduct of
the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of
the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of
the votes; “returns” refers to the canvass of the returns
and the proclamation of winners, including questions
concerning the composition of the board of canvassers
and the authenticity of the election returns; and
“qualifications” refers to matters that could be raised in
quo warranto proceeding against the proclaimed
winner, such as his disloyalty or ineligibility or the
inadequacy of his CoC.
In the foregoing light, considering that Angelina had
already been proclaimed as Member of the House of
Representatives for the 4th District of Quezon Province
on May 16, 2013, as she has in fact taken her oath and
assumed office past noon time of June 30, 2013, the
Court is now without jurisdiction to resolve the case at
bar. As they stand, the is-

325
VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 325

sues concerning the conduct of the canvass and the

resulting proclamation of Angelina as herein discussed
are matters which fall under the scope of the terms
“election” and “returns” as above stated and hence,
properly fall under the HRET’s sole jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Thereafter, the Tribunal directed Tan to submit her
responsive pleading to the election contest.
In compliance, Tan filed her verified answer with special
and affirmative defenses and counter-protest, praying that the
Tribunal dismiss the election protest pursuant to Rule 16 in
relation to Rule 21 of The 2011 Rules of the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (2011 HRET Rules) for
being grossly deficient in form and substance under the law,
and considering further that Wigberto was guilty of forum
shopping.
In his reply and answer to the counter-protest, Wigberto
insisted that the Supreme Court had already declared in G.R.
Nos. 207199-200 that the Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction
to determine whether or not Alvin John was a nuisance
candidate, and whether or not crediting the votes garnered by
Alvin John to Wigberto constituted an election contest.
On February 11, 2014, Tan filed her comment with motion
to dismiss and/or set the case for preliminary hearing or oral
argument.
On February 27, 2014, the Tribunal granted Tan’s motion
to set the oral arguments, and held oral arguments on March
13, 2014.4

The HRET’s Ruling

The HRET promulgated the assailed Resolution on 25 September
2014.
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 39-44.

326
The HRET held that Wigberto did not commit forum shopping.
Wigberto sought exclusive relief from the HRET for his electoral
protest in the belief that it was the proper forum for his predicament.
He did not go to the HRET to look for a friendly forum to obtain a
favorable result.
However, the HRET held that Wigberto’s election protest was
insufficient in form and substance. The HRET found that Wigberto’s
election protest failed to allege the facts to support a valid election
protest as required by Rule 16 of the 2011 HRET Rules. Although
the pleading was captioned as an election protest, its contents were
more appropriate for a petition to annul Tan’s proclamation. The
HRET further stated that the material fraud in an election protest
must be of an “intrinsic nature as to which the protestant was caught
off his guard,” and not extrinsic, or “one that he could have
effectively prevented after the filing of Alvin John’s CoC but still
during the campaign period.”
Finally, the HRET ruled that it has no jurisdiction to declare that
Alvin John was a nuisance candidate. The HRET relied on Section
17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 15 of the 2011
HRET Rules to declare that its power to judge election contests is
limited to Members of the House of Representatives. Alvin John,
admittedly, is not a Member of the House of Representatives.
The dispositive portion of the HRET’s Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, the election protest ad cautela of
protestant WIGBERTO “TOBY” R. TAÑADA, JR. is
DISMISSED for being insufficient in form and in substance,
and for lack of jurisdiction to pronounce and declare Alvin
John S. Tañada as a nuisance candidate.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.5
_______________
5 Id., at p. 50.

327
VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 327

Representative Luzviminda C. Ilagan (Rep. Ilagan) of Gabriela

Women’s Party wrote a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.
Rep. Ilagan stated that Wigberto’s election protest is sufficient in
form and substance. The purpose of an election protest is to
ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed by the board of
canvassers is the lawful choice of the people. Wigberto was not
raising matters of irregularities in the counting of votes at the
precinct level, so there was no need to cite the specific precincts in
the protest filed before the HRET. Rep. Ilagan further stated that the
principle of liberal interpretation and application of the HRET Rules
is consistent with the HRET’s constitutional duty to ensure that the
will of the electorate is not defeated.
Rep. Ilagan declared that the HRET has jurisdiction to determine
whether Tan committed fraud by fielding Alvin John, and whether
Alvin John is a nuisance candidate. The jurisdiction of the HRET in
the adjudication of election contests is intended to be full, complete
and unimpaired. The facts and circumstances of the case, that is, the
limitations in the procedures of the computerized elections that led
to the non-deletion of Alvin John’s name in the ballots despite the
cancellation of his certificate of candidacy, the refusal of the
COMELEC to declare Alvin John a nuisance candidate, and the
eventual decision of the COMELEC to annul Tan’s proclamation
and credit Alvin John’s votes to Wigberto, show that the electorate’s
will was not realized.
Finally, Rep. Ilagan concurred with the Resolution that Wigberto
did not commit forum shopping. Even if Wigberto instituted actions
before different institutions, the actions had different causes of
action.
Wigberto filed his Motion for Reconsideration of the HRET’s
Resolution on 3 November 2014. He raised the following grounds:
(1) the jurisdiction of the HRET in election protests is defined by the
Constitution, the law and jurisprudence, and cannot be arbitrarily
limited by the HRET; (2) the opening of

328

ballot boxes and the revision of ballots are not essential to an

election protest; and (3) the HRET cannot refuse the exercise of its
jurisdiction over the fraud committed by a protestee on the ground
that it has no power to reverse a COMELEC ruling on a nuisance
candidate.
The HRET denied Wigberto’s Motion for Reconsideration in its
Resolution dated 22 January 2015.
Wigberto filed the present Petition for Certiorari on 18 March
2015.

The Issues

Wigberto enumerated the following grounds warranting
allowance of his petition:
1. Public respondent HRET gravely abused its discretion,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it
whimsically, capriciously, and arbitrarily limited its own
jurisdiction in election protests as defined by the Constitution,
the law, and jurisprudence.
whimsically, capriciously, and arbitrarily declared that an
election protest is limited to the opening of ballot boxes and
the revision of ballots.
whimsically, capriciously, and arbitrarily declared that it
cannot look into the fraudulent fielding of a nuisance
candidate as perpetrated by herein private respondent, because
it has no power to review, modify, or reverse the factual
finding of the COMELEC on nuisance candidates.6
_______________
6 Id., at p. 14.

329
VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 329

The Court’s Ruling

The petition has no merit. We affirm the Resolutions of the
HRET.

Wigberto’s Procedural Errors

In G.R. Nos. 207199-200, this Court narrated the following
events:
In a Resolution dated January 29, 2013, the COMELEC
First Division dismissed both petitions for lack of merit. On
Wigberto’s motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC En
Banc, in a Resolution dated April 25, 2013, upheld the
COMELEC First Division’s ruling in SPA No. 13-057 (DC)
that Alvin John was not a nuisance candidate as defined under
Section 69 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, as amended,
otherwise known as the “Omnibus Election Code of the
Philippines” (OEC). However, in SPA No. 13-056 (DC), it
granted the motion for reconsideration and cancelled Alvin
John’s CoC for having committed false material
representations concerning his residency in accordance with
Section 78 of the OEC.
On May 15, 2013, Wigberto filed a 2nd Motion for
Partial Reconsideration of the COMELEC En Banc’s
ruling in SPA No. 13-057 (DC) on the ground of newly
discovered evidence. He alleged that Alvin John’s candidacy
was not bona fide because: (a) Alvin John was merely forced
by his father to file his CoC; (b) he had no election
paraphernalia posted in official COMELEC posting areas in
several barangays of Gumaca, Quezon Province; (c) he did
not even vote during the May 13, 2013 National Elections;
and (d) his legal representation appeared to have been in
collusion with the lawyers of Angelina.
On May 15 and 16, 2013, Wigberto filed with the
COMELEC En Banc an Extremely Urgent Motion to
Admit Additional and Newly Discovered

330

Evidence and to Urgently Resolve Motion for

Reconsideration and an Urgent Manifestation and
Supplemental thereto. These motions, however, remained
unacted upon until the filing of the present petition before
the Court on May 27, 2013. Thus, in order to avoid charges
of forum shopping, said motions were withdrawn by
Wigberto.7

Wigberto committed several fatal procedural errors.
First, Wigberto filed a prohibited pleading: a motion for
reconsideration of a resolution of the COMELEC En Banc. Section
1(d), Rule 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure specifically
prohibits the filing of a “motion for reconsideration of an En Banc
ruling, resolution, order or decision except in election offense
cases.” Consequently, the COMELEC En Banc ruling became final
and executory,8 precluding Wigberto from raising again in any other
forum Alvin John’s nuisance candidacy as an issue.
Second, Wigberto filed his petition beyond the period provided
by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The COMELEC En Banc
promulgated its resolution on Alvin John’s alleged nuisance
candidacy on 25 April 2013. Wigberto filed his peti-
_______________
7 Tañada, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 207199-200, 22 October

2013, 708 SCRA 188, 191-192. Citations omitted. Emphases added.
8 The HRET’s 25 September 2014 Resolution stated that Wigberto sought
reconsideration of the denial of his petition before the COMELEC En Banc in SPA
Case No. 13-057 on 7 May 2013. On the other hand, our resolution in G.R. Nos.
207199-200 stated that Wigberto filed a second motion for partial reconsideration of
the COMELEC En Banc’s ruling in SPA Case No. 13-057 on 15 May 2013. Wigberto
also filed with the COMELEC En Banc on 15 and 16 May 2013 an Extremely Urgent
Motion to Admit Additional and Newly Discovered Evidence and to Urgently
Resolve Motion for Reconsideration and an Urgent Manifestation and Supplemental
thereto. In any event, Wigberto still filed said pleadings beyond the reglementary
period.

331
VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 331

tion in G.R. Nos. 207199-200 before this Court on 27 May 2013.

By this date, the COMELEC En Banc’s resolution on Alvin John’s
alleged nuisance candidacy was already final and executory. Section
3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides:

Section 3. Decisions Final After Five Days.—Decisions
in preproclamation cases and petitions to deny due course to
or cancel certificates of candidacy, to declare a candidate as
nuisance candidate or to disqualify a candidate, and to
postpone or suspend elections shall become final and
executory after the lapse of five (5) days from their
promulgation, unless restrained by the Supreme Court.

What Wigberto should have done was to file a petition for
certiorari with this Court within five days from promulgation of the
25 April 2013 resolution of the COMELEC En Banc. Wigberto
failed to timely assail before this Court through a petition for
certiorari the COMELEC En Banc resolution declaring that Alvin
John was not a nuisance candidate.

The HRET’s Exercise of its J urisdiction

The HRET did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in
declaring that it has no jurisdiction to determine whether Alvin John
was a nuisance candidate. If Wigberto timely filed a petition before
this Court within the period allotted for special actions and
questioned Alvin John’s nuisance candidacy, then it is proper for this
Court to assume jurisdiction and rule on the matter. As things stand,
the COMELEC En Banc’s ruling on Alvin John’s nuisance
candidacy had long become final and executory.
To our mind, it appears that Wigberto’s petition challenging
Alvin John’s nuisance candidacy filed before the HRET, and now
before this Court, is a mere afterthought. It was only after Angelina
was proclaimed a winner that Wigberto renewed his zeal in pursuing
Alvin John’s alleged nuisance

332

candidacy. It is not enough for Wigberto to have Alvin John’s

CoC cancelled, because the effect of such cancellation only leads to
stray votes.9 Alvin John must also be declared a nuisance candidate,
because only then will Alvin John’s votes be credited to Wigberto.10
_______________
9 Section 6, Republic Act No. 6646, The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987
provides:
Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case.—Any candidate who has been declared
by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him
shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning
number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the
trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant
or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the
proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
10 Our ruling in Dela Cruz v. Commission on Elections, 698 Phil. 548; 685 SCRA
347 (2012), prompted the issuance of COMELEC Resolution No. 9599, In The
Matter of the Amendment to Rule 24 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure as amended
by Resolution No. 9523 (2012). The amendment reads:
Section 5. Applicability of Rule 23.—Except for motu proprio cases, Sections 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Rule 23 shall apply in proceedings against nuisance candidates.
If the person declared as a nuisance candidate and whose certificate of candidacy
has been cancelled or denied due course does not have the same name and/or surname
as a bona fide candidate for the same office, the votes cast for such nuisance candidate
shall be deemed stray pursuant to Section 9 of Rule 23.
If the person declared as a nuisance candidate and whose certificate of candidacy
has been cancelled or denied due course has the same name and/or surname as a bona
fide candidate for the same office, the votes cast shall not be considered stray but shall
be counted and tallied for the bona fide candidate. However, if there are two or more
bona fide candidates with the same name and/or surname as the nuisance candidate,
the

333
VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 333

Wigberto further argues that this Court directed him to seek

resolution regarding Alvin John’s purported nuisance candidacy
before the HRET. This is inaccurate. We directed Wigberto to the
HRET to question the conduct of the canvass and Tan’s
proclamation. We stated thus:

In the foregoing light, considering that Angelina had
already been proclaimed as Member of the House of
Representatives for the 4th District of Quezon Province on
May 16, 2013, as she has in fact taken her oath and assumed
office past noon time of June 30, 2013, the Court is now
without jurisdiction to resolve the case at bar. As they stand,
the issues concerning the conduct of the canvass and the
resulting proclamation of Angelina as herein discussed are
matters which fall under the scope of the terms “election” and
“returns” as above stated and hence, properly fall under the
HRET’s sole jurisdiction.11
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition and AFFIRM the

assailed Resolutions promulgated on 25 September 2014 and 22
January 2015 by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal in
HRET Case No. 13-018 (EP).
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ.), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, Mendoza,

Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., No Part. HRET Chairman.
Brion, J., On Leave.
Peralta, J., No part, member of the HRET.
Bersamin, J., I take no part, being a Member of HRET.
_______________
votes cast for the nuisance candidate shall be considered as stray votes.
11 Supra note 7 at p. 196.

334

Perez, J., I concur. See short concurrence.
CONCURRING OPINION
PEREZ, J.:

I register my vote with the majority for the dismissal of the
instant petition. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disclaiming
jurisdiction over the protest filed by herein petitioner Wigberto
“Toby” R. Tañada, Jr. (Wigberto).
A perusal of the protest petitioner filed before the tribunal reveals
that his claim of entitlement to office as Quezon province’s
Representative for its Fourth Legislative District is anchored on the
postulation that the 7,038 votes cast for his political rival, private
respondent John Alvin S. Tañada (John
Alvin), an alleged nuisance candidate, should instead be credited
in his favor.1 These votes combined with the 80,698 already credited
to petitioner exceeds private respondent Angelina Tan’s tally of
votes that totaled 84,782.
It is patent from petitioner’s line of argument that the declaration
of Alvin John as a nuisance candidate is a precondition before the
relief he seeks can be granted. Unfortunately, the HRET lacks the
authority to rule on whether or not Alvin John is indeed a nuisance
candidate as Wigberto pegged him to be.
Under the 2015 Revised Rules of the HRET (HRET Rules), the
electoral tribunal only has jurisdiction over two types of
_______________
1 Sec. 5, Rule 24 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure

Section 5. Applicability of Rule 23.—x x x
If the person declared as a nuisance candidate and whose certificate of
candidacy has been cancelled or denied due course does not have the same
name and/or surname as a bona fide candidate for the same office, the votes
cast for such nuisance candidate shall be deemed stray pursuant to Section 9
of Rule 23.

335
VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 335

election contests: election protests and quo warranto cases.2 An

election protest is the proper remedy against acts or omissions
constituting electoral frauds or anomalies in contested polling
precincts, and for the revision of ballots.3 On the other hand, the
eligibility of the Member of the Lower House is impugned in a quo
warranto case.4 Evidently, the HRET Rules do not prescribe
procedural guidelines on how the Certificate of Candidacy of a
political aspirant can be cancelled on the ground that he or she is a
nuisance candidate. Rather, this remedial vehicle is instituted in the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Rules of Procedure,
particularly Rule 245 thereof, by virtue of Sec. 69 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election
Code.6
It is worth recalling in the case at bar that the COMELEC, in the
exercise of its jurisdiction, has resolved that Alvin John is not a
nuisance candidate, although he committed false material
representations in his certificate of candidacy.7 It was error, however,
for petitioner to assume that the HRET may thereafter reverse the
COMELEC’s findings. The tribunal is not vested with appellate
jurisdiction over the rulings of the COMELEC En Banc. As the
Court held in Codilla, Sr. v.
_______________
2 Rules 15-18 of the 2015 Revised Rules of the HRET

3 Rule 17 of the 2015 Revised Rules of the HRET.
4 Rule 18 of the 2015 Revised Rules of the HRET.
5 Entitled “Proceedings Against Nuisance Candidates.”
6 Section 69. Nuisance candidates.—The Commission may motu proprio or upon
a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a
certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has been filed to put the
election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by
the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or
acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for
the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a
faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.
7 April 25, 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc in SPA 13-056 and SPA
13-057.

336

Hon. De Venecia,8 the HRET cannot assume jurisdiction over a

cancellation case involving Members of Lower House that had
already been decided by the COMELEC and is under review by the
Supreme Court.9 I see no bar against applying the same restriction
by analogy to proceedings against nuisance candidates wherein a
final judgment has already been rendered by the polling commission,
even more so in this case where Alvin John can never be deemed a
“Member” of Congress over whom the HRET can exercise
jurisdiction.
In Reyes v. COMELEC,10 the Court made clear that the
jurisdiction of the HRET, as circumscribed under Article VI, Section
17 of the Constitution,11 is limited to the election, returns, and
qualification of the Members of the House of Representatives. And
to be considered a Member of the Lower House, there must be a
concurrence of the following requisites: (1) a valid proclamation, (2)
a proper oath, and (3) assumption of office. This remains to be the
standing test of membership in Congress being applied by the Court.
To set the record straight, the dismissal of the petitions in G.R.
Nos. 207199-200 on October 22, 2013 was never intended
_______________
8 G.R. No. 150605, December 10, 2002, 393 SCRA 639.
9 Concurring Opinion of former Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad in Reyes v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, October 22, 2013, 708 SCRA 197.
10 G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013, 699 SCRA 522.
11 SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have
an Electoral Tribunal, which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be
Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who
shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties
and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented
therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

337
VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 337

to modify, much less overturn, the doctrine laid down in Reyes.

Noteworthy is that the dismissal was effected through a minute
resolution, in contrast to the Decision in Reyes, which was the result
of a deeper scrutiny of the issue regarding the HRET’s jurisdiction.
Moreover, the statement in our ruling in G.R. Nos. 207199-200 that
proclamation alone vests the HRET with jurisdiction over election,
returns, and qualification of the winning candidate is mere obiter
dictum, for as the Court observed, all of the three requisites for
private respondent Tan’s membership in the Congress were
present.12 To dispel any lingering doubt, the Court has ruled in the
recent case of Timuay v. COMELEC13 that “once a winning
candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office
as a Member of the House of Representatives, the jurisdiction of the
(COMELEC) over election contests relating to his/her election,
returns, and qualification ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction
begins,” in consonance with our ruling in Reyes.
Applying Reyes, it becomes indisputable that Alvin John cannot
be considered a “Member” of Congress. Having garnered the least
number of votes in a landslide defeat, he could have never been
recognized as the winning candidate. Consequently, he could not
have validly taken an oath of office, nor could he have discharged
the functions pertaining to a district representative. As a nonmember
of Congress, the HRET could not therefore assume jurisdiction over
the issues concerning his eligibility, e.g., the issue on whether or not
he is a nuisance candidate.
In view of the foregoing considerations, I concur in the
DISMISSAL of the instant petition.
_______________
12 Tan was validly proclaimed on May 16, 2013, she has already taken her oath,
and she has assumed office by midday of June 30, 2013.
13 G.R. No. 207144, February 3, 2015.

338

Petition dismissed, resolutions affirmed.
Notes.—Nuisance candidates are persons who file their

certificates of candidacy “to put the election process in mockery or
disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of
the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or
acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide
intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy
has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true
will of the electorate.” (Timbol vs. Commission on Elections, 751
SCRA 456 [2015])
To minimize the logistical confusion caused by nuisance
candidates, their certificates of candidacy may be denied due course
or cancelled by respondent. (Id.)

——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

FB Legtech PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FB Legtech PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 785

G.R. No. 217012. March 1, 2016.*

Election Law; COMELEC Rules of Procedure; Section 1(d), Rule 13 of

VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 315

Same; Cancellation of Certiﬁcate of Candidacy; Nuisance Candidates;

316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 317

been rendered by the polling commission, even more so in this case

resentatives, the jurisdiction of the [COMELEC] over election contests

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

1 Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 319

320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

c) Respondent Tañada’s own tweets and entries in

VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 321

TIVES, 4TH DISTRICT, QUEZON with URGENT

13. The fraud perpetrated upon herein Protestant in

VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 323

Congressman. Such palpable silence, if not

324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

COMELEC En Banc afﬁrmed the action of the

VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 325

sues concerning the conduct of the canvass and the

4 Id., at pp. 39-44.

VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 327

Representative Luzviminda C. Ilagan (Rep. Ilagan) of Gabriela

328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ballot boxes and the revision of ballots are not essential to an

VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 329

The Court’s Ruling

330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Evidence and to Urgently Resolve Motion for

7 Tañada, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 207199-200, 22 October

VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 331

tion in G.R. Nos. 207199-200 before this Court on 27 May 2013.

332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

candidacy. It is not enough for Wigberto to have Alvin John’s

VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 333

Wigberto further argues that this Court directed him to seek

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition and AFFIRM the

Sereno (CJ.), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, Mendoza,

334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Perez, J., I concur. See short concurrence.

1 Sec. 5, Rule 24 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure

VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 335

election contests: election protests and quo warranto cases.2 An

2 Rules 15-18 of the 2015 Revised Rules of the HRET

336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hon. De Venecia,8 the HRET cannot assume jurisdiction over a

VOL. 785, MARCH 1, 2016 337

to modify, much less overturn, the doctrine laid down in Reyes.

338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Petition dismissed, resolutions afﬁrmed.

Notes.—Nuisance candidates are persons who ﬁle their

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like